









































Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
11

1

American Journal of   
Environment and Climate (AJEC)

Synergizing Cost Optimization and Environmental Engineering in Water Desalination: 
Best Practices for Sustainable Project Management

Atif  Ahmed Khan1*

Volume 4 Issue 3, Year 2025
ISSN: 2832-403X (Online) 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajec.v4i3.5414
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received: June 12, 2025
Accepted: July 16, 2025
Published: November 11, 2025

This study evaluates desalination technologies’ environmental and economic performance 
by comparing the Ras Al-Khair and Shoaiba desalination plants in Saudi Arabia. The 
primary objective is to integrate Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and cost analysis to assess the 
sustainability of  Reverse Osmosis (RO), Multi-Stage Flash (MSF), and hybrid desalination 
systems. The results reveal significant differences in energy consumption, global warming 
potential (GWP), brine disposal management, and resource depletion. Using a hybrid RO/
MSF system, Ras Al-Khair demonstrates substantially lower energy demands (3–5 kWh/
m³) and a reduced carbon footprint, capturing 300,000 tons of  CO2 annually. In contrast, 
Shoaiba’s MSF system, relying on crude oil for power generation, generates higher energy 
consumption (13–15 kWh/m³) and 8.2 million tons of  CO₂ emissions annually. The 
economic analysis highlights Ras Al-Khair’s higher initial capital expenditure (CAPEX) 
of  $7.6 billion but lower operational costs ($0.65/m³) and a faster break-even period (12 
years) compared to Shoaiba’s $1.60/m³ cost and a break-even period of  18 years. The study 
emphasizes integrating energy recovery, carbon capture, and renewable energy solutions 
in sustainable desalination practices to address global water scarcity while minimizing 
environmental impact and enhancing economic feasibility.

Keywords
Carbon Emissions, Cost nalysis,
Desalination, Energy Efficiency, 
Life Cycle Assessment, Multi-Stage 
Flash, Reverse Osmosis 

1 Dunster Business School, Switzerland
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: atifahmed@researchergroup.co

INTRODUCTION
Water scarcity is a growing global crisis, with nearly 
two-thirds of  the population expected to face water 
stress by 2025 (Ahmed et al., 2019). The situation is 
particularly severe in arid regions such as the Middle 
East and North Africa, where over 80% of  freshwater 
resources are exploited unsustainably (Al-Obaidi et 
al., 2019). With a projected 40% water deficit by 2030, 
desalination has become a critical solution, offering a 
climate-independent freshwater source. Over 97.4 million 
cubic meters of  desalinated water are produced daily, 
securing water supplies for more than 300 million people. 
Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the UAE have 
integrated desalination into their national water strategies, 
demonstrating its role as a global necessity rather than 
just a regional solution (Peng et al., 2018).
In the past decade, the development of  desalination 
technologies such as Reverse Osmosis (RO), Multi-
Stage Flash (MSF), and Multi Effect Distillation (MED) 
methods have been widespread. GWI 2022 report showed 
that RO represents almost 70% of  the global desalination 
capacity; in particular, RO consumes less energy (3–5 
kWh/m³) than MSF (13–15 kWh/m³), so RO is preferred 
(Do Thi and Tóth, 2023). Plants such as Israel’s Sorek 
facility and the Sydney Desalination Plant have proven 
that RO technology is efficient. Nevertheless, salt thermal 
desalination (MSF and MED) continues to be prevalent 
in areas of  cogeneration with power plants, where MSF is 
used in Kuwait and the UAE, and MED in solar coupled 
desalination projects (Angelakis et al., 2021).
Despite its advantages, desalination is fraught with major 

costs and environmental problems. According to reports 
of  IEA 2022, up to 60% of  total desalination costs 
are energy expenses, which makes desalination highly 
sensitive to fuel price fluctuations. Innovation in energy 
recovery systems has progressed, but desalination remains 
two to three times more expensive than conventional 
water sources (Schär et al., 2023). Moreover, desalination 
plants add about 76 million tons of  CO₂ annually, which 
is worsening climate change. Solar- and wind-powered 
hybrid desalination systems developed by countries like 
the UAE and Spain are aimed to reduce emissions (Ayaz 
et al., 2022).
There is also a significant environmental risk in brine 
disposal. Brine is discharged at about 142 million cubic 
meters per day with salinity levels twice that of  seawater, 
causing alterations in oxygen levels, loss of  biodiversity 
and habitat destruction. Dilution techniques, brine 
concentration recovery, and zero liquid discharge are 
being studied for adoption, but the high costs limit 
their use. To reduce environmental impact, sustainable 
desalination must advance from energy and improved 
brine management to cheaper energy prices and more 
dependence on renewables (Bello et al., 2021, Soliman et 
al., 2021).
The issue of  water scarcity affects more than 40% of  the 
global population, so desalination is an important means 
to solve this problem. However, due to low energy mass 
diffusivities in semiconducting sensors, its adoption is 
hindered by high energy consumption, operating costs, 
and environmental impacts (Dhakal et al., 2022). The 
selection of  the most sustainable technology depends on 



Pa
ge

 
11

2

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 111-122, 2025

the efficiency of  technologies such as RO, MSF, and MED, 
each with its efficiency. However, the costs and impacts 
of  many of  these desalination plants are still high; for 
example, they still consume excessive energy (e.g. MSF 
13 15 kWh/m³ vs RO 3 5 kWh/m³), produce high CO₂ 
emission, and have difficulty with brine disposal. The 
absence of  an integrated assessment framework in the 
decision-making gap of  desalination project management 
regarding cost efficiency and environmental sustainability 
is promoted by a need for a comprehensive evaluation 
(Alshail, 2020).
While considerable work exists in the destination field, 
the overwhelming majority is centred on efficiency, brine 
disposal or cost analysis with no holistic assessments that 
integrate Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) with financial 
metrics. The real-world economic and environmental 
trade-offs are often ignored when comparing RO, MSF 
and MED. Furthermore, most cost studies focus on 
the CAPEX and OPEX, neglecting external costs, 
such as carbon emissions and brine disposal. It leads to 
incomplete financial assessment. However, this study 
combines LCA and cost analysis to address the gap 
and provide a balanced sustainability comparison of  
desalination technologies.
This study is significant because it couples cost 
optimization with environmental sustainability in 
desalination. It uses a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 
framework to assess energy use, CO₂ emissions, water 
consumption, resource depletion, and brine disposal, 
and a detailed cost analysis of  CAPEX, OPEX, and 
break even. The results provide policymakers, engineers, 
and investors practical guidelines for economically 
designing sustainable desalination facilities. This research 
supports the next generation of  sustainable desalination 
infrastructure by identifying best practices in energy 
recovery, hybrid technologies and brine management.
This study aims to evaluate desalination technologies’ 
environmental and economic performance by integrating 
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and cost analysis. To 
determine sustainability, it will assess energy consumption, 
carbon emissions, water use, resource depletion, and 
brine disposal. A detailed cost analysis will also examine 
CAPEX, OPEX, cost per cubic meter of  water, and 
break-even periods to compare long-term economic 
feasibility. The study also explores synergies between cost 
optimization and environmental sustainability, identifying 
strategies like energy recovery and hybrid systems to 
improve efficiency. Finally, it proposes best practices for 
desalination project management, offering data-driven 
recommendations for sustainable and cost-effective 
operations. This study answers the following research 
questions:
1. What are the environmental impacts of  different 

desalination technologies (RO, MSF, MED) based on 
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) criteria such as energy 
consumption, carbon emissions, and brine disposal?
2. How do the costs of  desalination technologies 

compare in terms of  Capital Expenditure (CAPEX), 

Operational Expenditure (OPEX), and cost per cubic 
meter of  water?
3. What strategies can optimize desalination project 

management to balance cost efficiency and environmental 
sustainability?

LITERATURE REVIEW
Environmental Impacts of  Desalination
Extensive studies have been conducted regarding 
desalination’s environmental challenges, mainly related to 
energy consumption, carbon emissions, brine discharge, 
and resource depletion. Desalination plants impact 
marine ecosystems severely by changing the salinity, 
chemical composition and dissolved oxygen conditions 
in receiving waters due to the brine discharge (Elsaid 
et al., 2020). Almasoudi and Jamoussi (2024) looked 
further into this issue and found that brine effluents 
from desalination plants all across the world are nearly 
50% more than previously thought, something that truly 
needs to be addressed in terms of  sustainable brine 
management approaches, either diluting, dispersing, and 
mineral recovery (Almasoudi & Jamoussi, 2024).
Another main environmental concern is energy 
consumption, especially for thermal desalination 
techniques with higher carbon footprints derived from 
fossil fuel-based energy resources . In a comparative study, 
Wang et al. (2019) have demonstrated that MSF and MED 
consume more than double the energy used by RO and, in 
this regard, are less sustainable in an environmental sense 
(Wang et al., 2019). Panagopoulos and Haralambous, 
(2020) in their study analyzed that Solar-powered and 
wind-powered RO systems can reduce CO₂ emissions 
by 30%. Unfortunately, intermittent energy supply and 
high initial capital costs have limited their large-scale 
implementation (Panagopoulos & Haralambous, 2020).
LCA has quantified the environmental impacts of  
desalination well. A comparative LCA study of  different 
desalination technologies was performed by Najid et al. 
(2021), and they concluded that although RO has a lower 
energy footprint, it still has a considerable environmental 
burden in terms of  membrane fouling, chemical pre-
treatment, and disposal of  brine (Najid et al., 2021). 
On the other hand, Khoshgoftar Manesh et al. (2020) 
expressed how MSF and MED could integrate power 
plants through cogeneration, making them more efficient 
despite their higher energy consumption. Nevertheless, 
current LCA studies have not completely integrated cost 
environmental trade-offs, preventing their use for real-
world decision-making (Khoshgoftar Manesh et al., 2020).

Cost Analysis of  Desalination Plants
Economic factors are paramount in desalination 
feasibility, and economic studies on capital costs 
(CAPEX), operational costs (OPEX), and externalities 
are discussed. Saleh and Mezher (2021) examined the 
desalination costs of  various technologies, especially RO, 
where costs ranged from$0.50 to$0.80 per cubic meter, 
whereas MSF and MED faced significantly higher energy 



Pa
ge

 
11

3

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 111-122, 2025

demand and maintenance burdens resulting in production 
costs in the range beyond$1.50 per cubic meter (Saleh 
and Mezher, 2021). In a more recent study, Generous et 
al. (2021) disclosed that energy costs represent about 40–
60% of  operational expenditures, which is an incentive 
to employ energy recovery technologies to decrease 
operational expenditures (Generous et al., 2021).
Most existing studies on desalination have addressed 
direct cost components, but external environmental 
costs of  desalination often have not been touched upon. 
According to Eke et al. (2020), thermal desalination 
plants become much less economically competitive if  
carbon taxes and the ecological damage associated with 
brine disposal are considered (Eke et al., 2020). Ahmadi 
et al. (2020) looked instead at the potential of  renewable-
powered desalination and concluded that solar-aided RO 
would reduce energy costs by 30%, although high initial 
CAPEX remains a barrier to adoption (Ahmadi et al., 
2020).
The long-term financial sustainability of  the desalination 
project also constitutes another cost-related issue. 
According to Shokri and Fard (2023), hybrid RO-MSF 
plants show cost parity with standalone MSF ones in 
12 years despite their increased initial investment due to 
increased energy efficiency (Shokri & Fard, 2023). This 
aligns with the results that Elewa (2024) showed that 
integrating energy recovery devices (ERDs) can help save 
up to 40% OPEX, making desalination financially more 
sustainable (Elewa, 2024).

Synergies between Cost Optimization and 
Environmental Engineering
Energy efficiency in desalination, brine management 
innovations and hybrid renewable desalination systems 
are strategies that have recently attracted attention as part 
of  the efforts to integrate environmental sustainability 
with cost reduction. Energy recovery technologies are 
considered promising since they have been demonstrated 
to reduce operating costs and carbon emissions 
dramatically (Saboori & Mehrjerdi, 2022). According to 
Mendoza-Zapata et al. (2023), using pressure exchangers 
in RO plants can increase energy efficiency by up to 50%, 
decreasing electricity consumption and environmental 
footprints (Mendoza-Zapata et al., 2023). 
Hybrid desalination systems are recognized as effective 
means of  improving the economic and environmental 
results. Abdelaziz et al. (2021) state that combining 
RO with MSF or MED to use the waste heat from the 
power plants may help optimize energy use by reducing 
the energy consumed from the outside (Abdelaziz et al., 
2021). Gomaa et al. (2023) further reported that a solar-
powered desalination study revealed that solar-aided RO 
could achieve levelized water costs below $1.00 per cubic 
meter. Solar-powered desalination is capable of  reaching 
the same as its fossil fuel-fueled competitors. Solar 
thermal integration encounters some of  these as barriers 
to its large-scale deployment due to intermittency issues 
and high integration costs (Gomaa et al., 2023).

Desalination research has also attracted increased attention 
in brine management. According to Mogashane et al. 
(2020), profitable salts and minerals could be extracted 
from brine, offsetting disposal costs (Mogashane et al., 
2020). On similar grounds, Abdelfattah and El-Shamy 
(2024) examined zero liquid discharge (ZLD) technologies 
to eliminate brine discharge and avoid environmental and 
financial burdens. Despite this, these approaches are still 
of  interest and will become cost-effective on an industrial 
scale once further technological advancements are made 
(Abdelfattah and El-Shamy, 2024).

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Selection of  Case Study Desalination Plants
This study selects Ras Al-Khair and Shoaiba desalination 
plants in Saudi Arabia to represent diverse desalination 
technologies, operational scales, and geographical contexts, 
focusing on RO, MSF, and hybrid systems. Using a hybrid 
RO/MSF system, Ras Al-Khair is one of  the largest 
and most energy-efficient plants globally, incorporating 
energy recovery and carbon capture technologies to 
reduce environmental impacts and improve operational 
efficiency. On the other hand, like other traditional oil-
based MSF technology, Shoaiba has lower initial capital 
costs but higher operating costs and CO2 emissions from 
crude oil-based plants. The study compares these plants 
and utilizes this comparison to discuss trade-offs between 
a plant’s technological efficiency, operational costs, and 
environmental performance, drawing upon knowledge of  
desalination in places with water scarcity.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Framework
Goal and Scope Definition
This LCA aimed to determine the environmental impacts 
throughout a desalination plant’s life (construction, 
operation, and decommissioning phases). The focus 
was on quantifying the ecological burdens of  each 
desalination stage and comparing the performance 
of  different desalination technologies (i.e. RO, MSF). 
The LCA consists of  three phases: construction phase 
(Examines the materials, energy consumption and 
emissions associated with the construction of  the plant); 
operational phase (Analyses energy consumption, water 
production, brine disposal, emissions and resources used 
during the operation of  the plant); and decommissioning 
phase (Indicates the environmental impacts such as waste, 
energy use or the potential risk of  soil pollution during 
dismantling of  the installation). The motivation is to 
identify possible ways to reduce the environmental effects 
and explore trade-offs between sustainable ecological 
qualities and economic performance.

Functional Unit
To have a fair comparison between different technologies 
and scales of  desalination, the functional unit of  LCA 
is defined as the production of  1000 cubic meters (m³) 
of  freshwater. This standardizes the measurement to 
allow plants of  any size, capacity, and technology to be 



Pa
ge

 
11

4

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 111-122, 2025

compared and a clear measure of  the environmental 
pressure per unit of  water produced. This approach 
enables a valuable understanding of  each desalination 
process’s relative energy consumption and emissions 
for its sustainability, which is important for sustainable 
development and for comparing the long-term viability.

System Boundaries
The LCA of  desalination plants covers the whole life 
cycle, from construction to decommissioning, and is 
focused on three key phases. The construction phase 
also refers to the energy and materials (i.e., raw material 
extraction, transportation, manufacturing, and assembly) 
used to construct the plant and the embodied energy 
and emissions contained in the materials, including 
concrete and steel, used to build the plant (e.g., mix 
and place concrete in the formworks, manufacture of  
reinforcing bars, the foundry process, etc.). The longest 
and most important phase for both cost-effectiveness 
and sustainability is the operational phase of  desalination, 
covering lifetime energy consumption for desalination, 
freshwater production (both quantity and quality), brine 
disposal, and emission of  CO₂ (especially from fossil 
fuel burning), and resource use including replacement 
of  consumables such as RO membranes. Finally, the 
decommissioning phase determines how much the plant’s 
dismantling impacts the environment, like how much 
energy was used while the plant is being taken down, how 
much waste will be disposed of, what amount of  waste 
will be recycled, and whether the soil was contaminated 
by the hazardous matter in the plant. The comprehensive 
nature of  such an approach enables a thorough life cycle 
assessment of  the environmental impacts involved in 
each stage of  the life of  the desalination plant.

Impact Categories
The environmental impact categories assessed within the 
LCA of  desalination plants include several key categories, 
which are important in understanding their sustainability. 
Global Warming Potential (GWP) focuses on the 
desalination plant’s greenhouse gas emissions regarding 
CO₂ equivalents, addressing how much the desalination 
plants contribute to climate change. Other important 
factors are energy consumption, direct energy inputs (for 
example, electricity for desalination), and indirect inputs 
(for example, construction energy) a major component 
of  the whole environmental footprint of  the plant. The 
water use category aims to use total water consumption 
during the plant life cycle (i.e., construction, operation, 
and maintenance) to qualify the sustainability of  the plant. 
Resource depletion is the amount of  non-renewable 
materials used in construction, such as steel and cement, 
calculated by the impacts on natural resources. Finally, 
brine disposal impacts consider the environmental 
effects of  brine discharge, which may drastically damage 
marine ecosystems if  not properly treated. These impact 
categories convey a detailed environmental performance 
of  desalination plants, allowing for a detailed comparison 

between different technologies and their relative 
sustainability in tackling water scarcity.

Cost Analysis Framework
Cost Breakdown
A cost comparison was carried out for the desalination 
plants that account for the capital cost and the ongoing 
cost to assess the cost-effectiveness of  the plants. All initial 
costs for infrastructure development, plant equipment, 
and installation of  the desalination plant form part of  the 
CAPEX, which includes the costs of  desalination plant 
construction. This investment was needed to understand 
the costs of  building a desalination facility. On the other 
hand, operational expenditure refers to the costs incurred 
in everyday expenses. This included energy consumption, 
maintenance, labour and the purchase of  desalination 
consumables (membranes and chemicals).
Besides CAPEX and OPEX, External Costs were also 
considered during the analysis. These environmental 
costs included brine disposal, emissions control 
costs, and other costs associated with compliance 
with environmental regulations. The study integrated 
these externalities to represent better the total cost of  
desalination beyond direct money spent into a wider 
societal and environmental cost.

Cost Calculation
The study then derived several key cost metrics to compare 
the economic performances of  different desalination 
technologies. One of  the main metrics calculated was 
Cost per m³ Water, based on dividing total combined 
operational and capital costs by the volume of  freshwater 
produced annually. This metric was used as a parameter 
to determine the economic efficiency of  the desalination 
process and the amount it costs to manufacture a unit of  
Water.
Another important calculation is the Cost per kWh of  
energy, which was calculated by dividing the energy 
costs attributed to fuel, electricity, and maintenance 
of  the plant’s energy infrastructure by the total energy 
consumption during operation. The figure compares 
the energy efficiency and operating energy costs for 
desalination technologies.
Lastly, the Break-even Analysis determines the period it 
takes to recover the initial capital investment, assigning 
the Cost of  producing Water and the revenue generation 
in the plant. The study calculated the time to break 
even, judging the long-term economic viability of  each 
desalination technology, which facilitates understanding 
the investment-bearing capacity of  the desalination 
facilities.
With this analysis, direct financial costs are integrated 
with external environmental costs to view the economic 
and ecological aspects of  desalination technologies 
comprehensively. What this extensive cost analysis 
accomplishes is that it allows one to compare and contrast 
several plants based on their operational characteristics, 
broad economic impacts, and environmental sustainability.



Pa
ge

 
11

5

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 111-122, 2025

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Environmental Impact Results
Overview of  LCA Results
A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of  the Ras Al-Khair 
and Shoaiba desalination plants shows that there are 
significant differences between their environmental 
impacts in the most common ecological categories, such 
as the global warming potential (GWP), energy and water 
consumption, resource depletion and brine disposal. 
Ras Al Khair operates with lower energy demands (3–5 
kWh/m³), and since it largely uses Reverse Osmosis 
(RO) with energy recovery systems, it results in having 
a much lower GWP and better ecological footprint, 
which is related to more sustainable use of  water. 
Furthermore, the plant avoids depletion of  resources 
due to the use of  advanced materials, and disposal of  
brine through dilution minimizes environmental risks. 
Shoaiba is, however, powered by a Multi-Stage Flash 
(MSF) technology, which uses crude oil combustion to 
generate power, requiring a gross energy consumption 
of  13 – 15 kWh/m³ with a GWP of  2473 in 2012 and 
8.2 million tons of  CO₂ emissions annually. Additionally, 
Shoaiba’s resource depletion rate is greater than that of  
the other plants as it requires a large volume of  concrete 
and steel, and its brine discharge methods are effective yet 
do not involve advanced treatment, potentially leading to 
higher environmental hazards.. Shoaiba, despite the lower 
initial capital expenditure (CAPEX) and the capability to 
produce electricity alongside water, is less sustainable than 

Ras Al-Khair due to the higher operational expenditure 
(OPEX) and negative environmental impacts.

Comparative Analysis
The comparison between the Shoaiba and Ras Al-
Khair projects demonstrates major differences from an 
environmental impact point of  view; Ras Al-Khair is 
more sustainable and does not harm the environment. 
The largest difference is in global warming potential 
(GWP), which is attributable to the energy efficiency 
of  Ras Al-Khair’s RO technology and carbon capture 
systems, allowing it to capture 300,000 tons of  CO₂ per 
year, whereas Shoaiba emits 8,200,000 tons each year. RO 
is less energy-demanding than the energy-intensive MSF 
process employed at Shoaiba using oil combustion. Its 
energy recovery systems make its energy consumption 
also much lower than Shoaiba: 3–5 kWh/m³ for RO vs 
13–15 kWh/m³ for MSF. Regarding brine disposal, brine 
from Ras Al-Khair is disposed of  with dilution channels, 
minimizing environmental impact; brine from Shoaiba 
with brine salinity (65–70 g/L) is not high and requires 
no advanced treatment but carries higher ecological risks. 
While the environmental footprint is smaller at Ras Al-
Khair due to its use of  advanced materials, Shoaiba’s 
construction demanded significant amounts of  concrete 
and steel. These differences illustrate how the more 
efficient and innovative technologies implemented in Ras 
Al-Khair minimize environmental impacts across several 
categories (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Comparison of  Environmental Impacts: Ras Al-Khair vs. Shoaiba

Major Contributors to Environmental Impacts
The energy consumption, brine disposal, emissions, and 
resource depletion were compared among the Shoaiba 
and Ras Al-Khair desalination plants. This highlights 
some of  the critical differences, especially on the energy 
consumption side and demonstrates the advantages of  
the Ras Al-Khair plant. Using a combined RO / MSF 
system, Ras Al-Khair largely benefits from a lower 

energy consumption than Shoaiba. Ras Al-Khair’s RO 
technology also consumes 3 – 5 kWh/m3 specifically, 
starkly contrasting with Shoaiba’s MSF technology, which 
requires 13 – 15 kWh/m3. Integrating energy recovery 
systems reduces the total electricity requirements and 
increases energy efficiency. This made Ras Al-Khair 
an energy-efficient design with its design a significant 
key to a low carbon footprint due to its carbon capture 



Pa
ge

 
11

6

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 111-122, 2025

system of  300,000 tons of  CO₂ reduction per year. In 
contrast, Shoaiba’s use of  crude oil combustion for 
power generation produces 8.2 million tonnes of  CO₂ 
emissions annually, contributing to the environmental 
damage caused by the plant.
Ras Al-Khair’s creative brine disposal approach includes 
dilution channels, which blend seawater with the 
contained brine before it is released, making its ecological 
effect much smaller. Brine with a50–55 g/L salinity 
in plant brine is less harmful to the marine ecosystem 
than the Shoaiba brine with 65–70 g/L salinity. Shoaiba 
has no advanced treatment technologies, and the brine 
is discharged into the marine environment without 
sufficient control, resulting in more risks to changing 
local aquatic life, reefs and fish populations.
Resource depletion constitutes an important factor in 
the sustainability of  desalination plants. Using advanced 
materials to construct Ras Al-Khair helps reduce the 
overall demand for non-renewable resources. Through 

energy recovery and efficient technologies, Ras Al-Khair 
minimises the amount of  raw materials needed, and thus, 
the plant is constructed and operated more sustainably. 
However, Shoaiba’s development phase entailed using 
considerable quantities of  concrete (1.2 million tons) and 
steel (85,000 tons), leading to higher resource depletion 
and a raised environmental footprint associated with the 
plant’s construction.
Through such comparisons, it is evident that adopting 
modern, low-energy desalination technologies, like the 
ones used at Ras Al-Khair, provides environmental 
benefits, reducing energy consumption and environmental 
impacts like CO₂ emissions and brine discharge. While 
Shoaiba offers important lessons on the operational 
viability of  conventional desalination technology, a 
consideration for transitioning to cleaner energy solutions 
and more sustainable desalination practices in the future 
are the higher energy and resource demand and fossil fuel 
reliance, respectively (Figure 2). 

Figure 2: Major Contributors to Environmental Impacts: Ras Al-Khair vs. Shoaiba

Comparison of  Desalination Technologies
Reverse Osmosis (RO) and Multi-Stage Flash (MSF) 
desalination technologies are dissimilar regarding energy 
efficiency, environmental impact, and sustainability. 
These differences are even more apparent in hybrid 
systems, such as At-Khair’s combination RO/MSF, which 
has significant advantages over typical MSFMSF-based 
stems, such as Shoaiba.

Energy Efficiency
Reverse Osmosis (RO) is widely accepted as the most 
energy-efficient desalination process among alternatives 
such as Multi-Stage Flash (MSF). RO requires seawater 
to travel through semi-permeable membranes to remove 
salts and impurities, requiring much less energy than 
the MSF process. Using RO technology, Ras Al-Khair 
operates at 3–5 kWh/m3, decreasing the energy demand. 
Energy recovery systems improve the efficiency of  

RO by capturing the pressure that is produced during 
desalination and returning it to the system, thereby 
minimizing the need for additional energy input. Ras 
Al-Khair is, therefore, highly energy efficient with a low 
carbon footprint and reduced operation costs.
On the other hand, MSF uses 13–15 kWh/m³ of  energy. 
It depends on boiling seawater in steps that reduce the 
pressure and temperature until freshwater is produced 
when the vapour condenses. Generally speaking, the 
heating needed for the process is made by fossil fuel 
combustion, such as crude oil or natural gas. Due to the 
high energy demand in MSF systems, the process is less 
efficient and costlier.

Environmental Impact
The energy consumption in desalination technologies is 
generally the main factor for its environmental impact 
in releasing more CO₂ and global warming potential 



Pa
ge

 
11

7

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 111-122, 2025

(GWP). The energy-efficient RO technology used in 
Ras Al-Khair has a much reduced ecological footprint. 
The carbon capture system of  the plant also helps to 
capture and repurpose about 300,000 tons of  CO₂ per 
year as part of  their environmental impact mitigation. 
Ras Al-Khair’s utilization of  renewable energy sources or 
carbon capture mechanisms reflects a sustainability and 
ecological conservation pledge, addressing the challenge 
caused by the high GWP of  desalination processes.
However, Shoaiba’s production of  8.2 million tons of  
CO₂ emissions annually is based on the MSF technology 
driven by crude oil. These emissions directly affect this 
plant’s obtrusive dependence on fossil fuels to generate 
energy. As a result, Shoaiba’s higher energy consumption 
and associated CO₂ emissions result in much more 
environmentally harmful options, thereby contributing to 
climate change and environmental degradation. Through 
this comparison, the great importance of  energy-efficient 
desalination technology in minimizing ecological impacts 
will be shown.

Sustainability
Desalination beyond energy efficiency and the reduction 

of  emissions in desalination involves sustainability on a 
long-term scale in terms of  resource use and preservation 
of  the environment. The deployment of  a hybrid RO/
MSF system at Ras Al-Khair is more sustainable than a 
conventional MSF system at Shoaiba. Energy recovery 
features integrated within the RO process and a carbon 
capture technology significantly reduces the damage 
caused by resource depletion and the plant’s environmental 
footprint. Furthermore, Ras Al-Khair also controls the 
brine discharge through dilution channels to minimise 
the negative ecological effects on the surrounding marine 
environment, which enables it to be a more sustainable 
solution for water production.
However, Shoaiba’s dependence on crude oil to generate 
energy makes the plant more resource-heavy but also 
exposes the plant to the vagaries of  fossil fuel markets. 
The large energy consumption of  the plant and the 
absence of  advanced brine management technologies 
make the MSF system of  Shoaiba less sustainable in the 
long run. Effective brine management and nonuse of  
nonrenewable energy sources are lacking in the currently 
available desalination technologies and need to be 
addressed for sustainable use (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Comparison of  Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions: RO vs. MSF

Cost Analysis Results
Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)
The Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) analysis provides 
insight into the financial figure of  access between the 
Ras Al-Khair and Shoaiba desalination plants. With its 
hybrid Reverse Osmosis (RO) / Multi Stage Flash (MSF) 
system, the initial investment cost for Ras Al-Khair 
reached $7.6 billion due to the complex infrastructure 
and advanced technologies, including energy recovery 
and carbon capture. However, the higher CAPEX of  this 
solution also means a greater upfront cost for the plant, 
but the higher energy efficiency and clean air properties 
that this solution offers present potential long-term 
financial and environmental benefits. However, Shoaiba 

turned to a more traditional MSF system with only 
an initial investment of  $5 billion. This is because it 
has a simpler design, and thus, it relies on oil-fired 
steam generation, which, though cost-effective at low 
operational expenditures, is higher than the operational 
costs due to energy demand and environmental impacts. 
However, even though Ras Al-Khair has a higher capital 
investment in the initial stage and higher operational 
costs in the later stage, it is ready for lower operational 
costs and environmental sustainability. The comparison 
illustrates the cost trade‐off  between more advanced 
and expensive technologies offering greater long-term 
economic performance and reduced environmental 
impact (Figure 4).



Pa
ge

 
11

8

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 111-122, 2025

Figure 5: OPEX Breakdown: Ras Al-Khair vs. Shoaiba

Operational Expenditure (OPEX)
Operational Expenditure (OPEX) analysis allows for 
the disclosure of  valuable insights into the long-term 
financial sustainability of  the Ras Al-Khair and Shoaiba 
desalination plants by analyzing key cost components 
such as energy consumption, maintenance, labour, and 
consumables. Desalination is an energy-intensive process, 
and energy consumption is the dominant contributor to 
OPEX for both plants. With energy-efficient Reverse 
Osmosis (RO) technology, with the help of  energy 
recovery systems, Ras Al-Khair’s energy demand is 
lowered to 3–5 kWh/m³. Its efficient system means you 
pay less electricity costs, adding to the cost-efficient supply 
chain. Conversely, Shoaiba relies on Multi Stage Flash 
(MSF) technology, which has high energy consumption 
(13–15 kWh/m³) and comes at a high fuel cost due to its 
dependence on crude oil.
Another major component of  OPEX is maintenance 
cost. At Ras Al-Khair, the energy-efficient design reduces 
wear and tear on equipment, hence lower maintenance 
costs ($0.10/m³). Shoaiba’s higher maintenance costs 
($0.20/m³) are due to more frequent part replacements 
and a high-energy intense operation. OPEX also includes 
labour costs, and due to the automation of  Ras Al-Khair’s 

operation, its labour requirements are low, and the cost 
is just $0.15/m³. On the contrary, Shoaiba’s utilization 
of  more manual processes leads to higher labour costs 
at the forklift level ($0.25/m³). Finally, consumables 
such as chemicals and membranes are an ongoing cost. 
The cost ($0.30/m³) of  the RO system at Ras Al-Khair 
is estimated with lower consumable use but higher 
replacement of  membranes due to very low energy usage. 
The MSF system of  Shoaiba shows a higher economical 
consumable cost ($0.50/m³) because of  its regular 
requirements for maintenance.
The Ras Al-Khair OPEX is $0.65/m³ while Shoaiba is 
$1.10/m³. The stark contrast in this case is attributed to 
the energy efficiency, automated operations, and high 
technology of  Ras Al-Khair to optimize operational 
costs directly and indirectly. On the contrary, higher 
energy consumption and outdated technology in Shoaiba 
result in higher OPEX and are therefore less competitive 
in terms of  overall cost-effectiveness. The breakdown 
of  the OPEX for both plants is presented in the 
following graph, which shows the contribution of  energy 
consumption, maintenance, labour, consumables, etc, to 
the total cost of  operation (Figure 5).

Figure 4: Comparison of  Capital Expenditure (CAPEX): Ras Al-Khair vs. Shoaiba



Pa
ge

 
11

9

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 111-122, 2025

Cost Calculation Metrics
Cost per m³ of  Water
Freshwater’s cost per cubic meter (m³) is a major financial 
metric of  desalination plant economic efficiency. Water 
Produced Turns Over Total Annual Capital Expenditure 
and Operational Expenditure To calculate this metric, 
the total Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and Operational 
Expenditure (OPEX) are divided by the annual volume 
of  water produced. It represents the overall costs of  
producing each cubic meter of  freshwater, presenting a 
transparent image of  each plant’s economic performance.
The plant produces 325 million m³ of  water annually at 
CAPEX of  $7.6 billion and OPEX of  $0.65/m³ for Ras 
Al Khair, which has higher but lower OPEX. This means 
that the cost per m³ of  water is relatively low, roughly 
$1.02/m³, combining the CAPEX and the OPEX in 
the lifecursive of  the plant. Although more expensive 
to develop in initial capital investment, the operational 
costs relative to Ras Al-Khair are lower and hence are 
made economically competitive because of  the lower 
energy consumption associated with energy efficiency 
and energy recovery systems.
On the other hand, Shoaiba, with a lower CAPEX of  
$5 billion and higher OPEX of  $1.10/m³, produces 
150 million m³ of  water annually. Furthermore, because 
the more energy-intensive Multi Stage Flash (MSF) 
technology prevails, Shoaiba faces a cost of  $1.60/m³ of  
water.. Shoaiba is advantaged in a lower initial investment 
but suffers from a higher operational expenditure that 
reduces efficiency in the long term in terms of  cost.

Cost per kWh of  energy
The other determinant of  the energy efficiency of  any 
desalination plant is the cost of  energy per kilowatt hour 
(kWh) consumed during operation. This enables an 
assessment of  the cost to generate each unit of  energy 
consumed by desalination, providing an indicator of  
each plant’s total energy efficiency and cost-effectiveness. 
Ras Al-Khair enjoys low energy cost per kWh owing to 
utilizing energy recovery systems in Reverse Osmosis 
(RO) technology, which are sensitive to natural gas cost 
variations. The operational efficiency offered by the 
plant is such that the estimated plant contribution in 
terms of  cost per kWh consumed is $0.12 - $0.18/kWh, 
even though its energy consumption is 3 – 5 kWh/m3 
of  capacity. Conversely, energy is produced at a higher 
cost per kWh using the energy-intensive MSF technology 
coupled with primary energy such as crude oil. Using fossil 
fuel, the Shoaiba uses 13–15 kWh/m3 with a significantly 
higher energy cost per kWh of  $0.25–$0.30/kWh.

Break-even Analysis
The break-even period is the time needed to recoup the 
initial capital investment (CAPEX) in a desalination plant 
from its water production revenues. It is an important 
one that dictates whether each desalination technology is 
financially viable or long-term sustainable. This move was 
achieved by varying CAPEX, OPEX, and the revenue 

from selling desalinated water.
The CAPEX of  $7.6 billion at Ras Al-Khair also has the 
break-evenbreak-even analysis to recover its investment 
in about 12 years. Due to low operations costs and 
profitability in the long run, this plant’s payback period 
is quite short.
On the other hand, Shoaiba requires only $5 billion for 
CAPEX, while its break even is set to take about 18 years. 
However, because Shoaiba has a higher OPEX (mainly 
high energy cost and maintenance), its payback period is 
longer than the other two desalination alternatives (Table 
1).

Table 1: Cost Summary

Metric Ras Al-
Khair

Shoaiba

CAPEX (Billion USD) 7.6 5.0
OPEX (USD/m³) 0.65 1.10
Annual Water Production 
(m³)

325 million 150 million

Cost per m³ of  Water 
(USD)

1.02 1.60

Energy Consumption 
(kWh/m³)

3–5 13–15

Cost per kWh of  Energy 
(USD)

0.12–0.18 0.25–0.30

Break-even Period (Years) 12 18

Discussions
The basis for the environmental analysis is the 
comparison of  energy consumption between the two 
plants. Having imported water consumption of  3–5 
kWh/m³, Ras Al-Khair’s water use is significantly lower 
than Shoaiba’s, where consumption is a steep 13–15 
kWh/m³; the RO technology with the energy recovery 
proves to be very efficient. These results align with 
sGude (2016) and Panagopoulo (2021), who showed 
that RO systems have a much lower energy demand per 
produced water than thermal desalination technologies, 
such as MSF. The integration of  the energy recovery 
system also demonstrates the decreased energy demand 
of  Ras Al-Khair, thereby accentuating the role of  energy-
saving technologies in combating issues related to high 
desalination operational costs and environmental impacts 
(Soliman et al., 2021).
However, Shoaiba is energy-intensive and highly 
environmentally detrimental due to its power generation 
based on crude oil. Oil-based desalination systems emit a 
high global warming potential (GWP) of  8.2 million tons 
annually due to the Shoaiba MSF process. This aligns 
with Schär et al. found: thermal processes such as MSF 
are generally more carbon-intensive because they rely 
on fossil fuels. Furthermore, the carbon capture system 
in Ras Al-Khair further reduces the amount of  CO₂ 
emissions by 300 000 tons per year, a function that adds 
to the overall environmental sustainability of  the plant 



Pa
ge

 
12

0

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 111-122, 2025

and contributes to the transition towards low carbon 
desalination technologies (Schär et al., 2023).
Furthermore, brine disposal is another advantage of  
Ras Al-Khair over Shoaiba. Shoaiba brine (65-70 g/L) 
is discharged untreated, while brine dilution techniques 
are applied in Ras Al-Khair plants to reduce the levels 
of  ecological risk of  discharge. High salinity brine 
discharge is known to deplete oxygen and harm aquatic 
life, disposing of  the risk of  marine ecosystem disruption 
as per literature (Fernández-Torquemada et al., 2019). 
Therefore, a site with less salty brine (50–55 g/L) and less 
mineral salts is more environmentally responsible as the 
sustainable option for disposing of  brine.
In the cost analysis, an examination of  the long-term cost 
benefits obtained through lower operational expenditure 
($0.65/m3) makes the initial capital expenditure, while 
the price for the Ras Al-Khair mine project ($7.6b) 
is comparatively higher than the other two projects, 
attractive. Shoaiba, with a lower CAPEX of  $5 billion, 
incurs higher OPEX ($1.10/m³) due to its energy-
intensive MSF system. The work Gao et al. (2021) 
presented demonstrates that RO-based desalination 
facilities will initially be more costly to invest but will 
cost far less in the long term because of  the lower energy 
requirement. The main difference lies precisely in the 
huge energy requirement of  MSF, as well as the efficiency 
of  Shoaiba’s technology, which leads the plant to burn 
more fuel and to repeat its processes more frequently 
(Gao et al., 2021).
Another factor that enhances the cost advantages of  
Ras Al-Khair is that the cost of  producing one cubic 
meter of  water is only $1.02/m³, substantially lower than 
the $1.60/m³ at Shoaiba. That aligns with findings by 
Mansour et al. (2020), who previously showed that energy 
recovery systems in RO plants can decrease operational 
costs by 40% (Mansour et al., 2020). Furthermore, the 
break-even analysis conducted on Ras Al-Khair returns 
its investments in roughly 12 years, which is consistent 
with what Sawle et al (2018) observe when discussing 
the research trend on hybrid systems, which initially 
cost more yet are financially sustainable in the long term 
because of  their efficiency and reduced operating costs 
(Sawle et al., 2018).
The findings of  this research show that a synergy between 
the environment and cost optimization is significant. 
Improvement of  Ras Al-Khair through the combination 
of  energy recovery systems and carbon capture 
technologies shows that energy-efficient technology 
increases the economic viability and environmental 
outputs of  the process. The study correlates with the 
findings of  Ghazi et al. (2022) who also mentioned 
that desalination ought to be rendered sustainable by 
providing energy recovery and use of  renewable energy. 
The Ras Al-Khair characteristics of  high sensorial carbon 
capture and low energy consumption demonstrate the 
ways of  how the advanced technologies can eliminate 
the environmental harm and maintain the economies low 
(Ghazi et al., 2022).

Moreover, the presence of  the hybrid RO/MSF system 
in Ras Al-Khair confirms that the hybrid desalination 
systems can be used to facilitate the optimal combination 
of  energy consumption and environmental impact, 
as stated by Heidary et al. (2018), which means that 
the employment of  the hybrid system can utilize the 
existing waste heat to reduce the external energy input 
requirements (Heidary et al., 2018). This is consistent 
with Heidary et al. (2019), who could increase the cost-
effectiveness and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 
integrating energy recovery systems into desalination 
infrastructure (Heidary et al., 2019).

CONCLUSION
The environmental and economic environmental 
performance of  desalination technologies at Ras Al-Khair 
and Shoaiba desalination plants has been comprehensively 
evaluated for this study. Results indicate that Ras Al-
Khair’s hybrid RO/MSF system becomes environmentally 
most sustainable, consuming less energy, creating less 
carbon emissions and better brine management, versus 
Shoaiba’s traditional MSF system. Also, Ras Al-Khair 
has lower operational costs and a quicker break-even 
period, further suggesting the financial benefit of  energy-
efficient technologies on desalination.
The results reinforce the value of  related cost 
optimization with environmental sustainability in future 
desalination projects. By incorporating energy recovery 
systems, renewable energy schemes, and carbon capture 
technologies, desalination plants can become economically 
viable in the long term and lower their ecological impact. 
This study’s findings can provide rich insights for 
policymakers and stakeholders in the desalination sector 
to adopt more sustainable and cost-effective desalination 
technologies to mitigate global water scarcity issues.

Limitations and Future Recommendations
Although much can be learned from this study regarding 
desalination technologies’ environmental and economic 
performance, some limitations should be addressed in 
the future. A significant limitation is the use of  regional 
energy and emission factor data that do not always cover 
global parameters of  energy sources and emissions 
profiles. Future studies would need more localized data 
and more contextualization concerning areas based 
on the energy grid and environmental regulations. In 
addition, this research focused primarily on large-scale 
desalination plants, but further study in the context of  
scale and decentralized systems powered by renewable 
energy (which have great potential in supplying water 
to underserved or off-grid communities whilst dealing 
with challenges with water scarcity) may be useful for 
applications to some cases soon.
Other future areas of  research include the social and 
economic impacts of  desalination, such as community 
acceptance, water affordability, and public health effects of  
large  scale desalination projects. A more systemic approach 
that considers these attributes and environmental and 



Pa
ge

 
12

1

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 111-122, 2025

economic dimensions will help provide decision-makers 
with more informed decisions and promote desalination 
technologies that benefit the environment, economy, and 
large. Additionally, integrated models that integrate cost 
and environmental sustainability metrics are required for 
development to guide desalination project management 
in developing a financially viable and environmentally 
responsible solution.

REFERENCES
Abdelaziz, G. B., El-Said, E. M., Dahab, M. A., Omara, 

M., & Sharshir, S. W. (2021). Hybrid solar desalination 
systems review. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, 
Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 1-31.

Abdelfattah, I., & El-Shamy, A. (2024). Review on the 
escalating imperative of  zero liquid discharge (ZLD) 
technology for sustainable water management and 
environmental resilience. Journal of  Environmental 
Management, 351, 119614.

Ahmadi, E., Mclellan, B., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., & 
Tezuka, T. (2020). The role of  renewable energy 
resources in sustainability of  water desalination as 
a potential fresh-water source: An updated review. 
Sustainability, 12, 5233.

Ahmed, F. E., Hashaikeh, R., Diabat, A., & Hilal, N. 
(2019). Mathematical and optimization modelling in 
desalination: State-of-the-art and future direction. 
Desalination, 469, 114092.

Al-Obaidi, M., Filippini, G., Manenti, F., & Mujtaba, I. 
M. (2019). Cost evaluation and optimisation of  hybrid 
multi effect distillation and reverse osmosis system 
for seawater desalination. Desalination, 456, 136-149.

Almasoudi, S., & Jamoussi, B. (2024). Desalination 
technologies and their environmental impacts: a 
review. Sustainable Chemistry One World, 1, 100002.

Alshail, K. (2020). Analysis of  solar energy in desalination 
plants in Saudi Arabia.

Angelakis, A. N., Valipour, M., Choo, K.-H., Ahmed, 
A. T., Baba, A., Kumar, R., Toor, G. S., & Wang, Z. 
(2021). Desalination: From ancient to present and 
future. Water, 13, 2222.

Ayaz, M., Namazi, M., Ud Din, M. A., Ershath, M. M., & 
Mansour, A. (2022). Sustainable seawater desalination: 
Current status, environmental implications and future 
expectations. Desalination, 540, 116022.

Bello, A. S., Zouari, N., Da’ana, D. A., Hahladakis, J. N., 
& Al-Ghouti, M. A. (2021). An overview of  brine 
management: Emerging desalination technologies, life 
cycle assessment, and metal recovery methodologies. 
Journal of  Environmental Management, 288, 112358.

Dhakal, N., Salinas-Rodriguez, S. G., Hamdani, J., 
Abushaban, A., Sawalha, H., Schippers, J. C., & 
Kennedy, M. D. (2022). Is desalination a solution 
to freshwater scarcity in developing countries? 
Membranes, 12, 381.

Do Thi, H. T., & Tóth, A. J. (2023). Investigation 
of  Carbon Footprints of  Three Desalination 
Technologies: Reverse Osmosis (RO), Multi-Stage 

Flash Distillation (MSF), and Multi-Effect Distillation 
(MED). Periodica Polytechnica Chemical Engineering, 1-8.

Eke, J., Yusuf, A., Giwa, A., & Sodiq, A. (2020). The 
global status of  desalination: An assessment of  
current desalination technologies, plants and capacity. 
Desalination, 495, 114633.

Elewa, M. M. (2024). Emerging and conventional water 
desalination technologies powered by renewable 
energy and energy storage systems toward zero liquid 
discharge. Separations, 11, 291.

Elsaid, K., Kamil, M., Sayed, E. T., Abdelkareem, M. A., 
Wilberforce, T., & Olabi, A. (2020). Environmental 
impact of  desalination technologies: A review. Science 
of  the total environment, 748, 141528.

Fernández-Torquemada, Y., Carratalá, A., & Lizaso, J. L. 
S., (2019). Impact of  brine on the marine environment 
and how it can be reduced. Desalination and water 
treatment, 167, 27-37.

Gao, L., Liu, G., Zamyadi, A., Wang, Q., & Li, M. (2021). 
Life-cycle cost analysis of  a hybrid algae-based 
biological desalination–low pressure reverse osmosis 
system. Water Research, 195, 116957.

Generous, M. M., Qasem, N. A., Akbar, U. A., & Zubair, 
S. M. (2021). Techno-economic assessment of  
electrodialysis and reverse osmosis desalination plants. 
Separation and Purification Technology, 272, 118875.

Ghazi, Z. M., Rizvi, S. W. F., Shahid, W. M., Abdulhameed, 
A. M., Saleem, H., & Zaidi, S. J. (2022). An overview of  
water desalination systems integrated with renewable 
energy sources. Desalination, 542, 116063.

Gomaa, M. R., Ala’a, K., Al-Dhaifallah, M., Rezk, H., & 
Ahmed, M. (2023). Optimal design and economic 
analysis of  a hybrid renewable energy system for 
powering and desalinating seawater. Energy Reports, 9, 
2473-2493.

Heidary, B., Hashjin, T., Ghobadian, B., & Roshandel, 
R. (2019). Performance analysis of  hybrid solar-
wind RO-MSF desalination system. Resource-Efficient 
Technologies, 1-16.

Heidary, B., Hashjin, T. T., Ghobadian, B., & Roshandel, 
R. (2018). Optimal integration of  small scale hybrid 
solar wind RO-MSF desalination system. Renewable 
Energy Focus, 27, 120-134.

Khoshgoftar Manesh, M., Kabiri, S., Yazdi, M., & 
Petrakopoulou, F. (2020). Thermodynamic evaluation 
of  a combined-cycle power plant with MSF and MED 
desalination. Journal of  Water Reuse and Desalination, 10, 
146-157.

Mansour, T. M., Ismail, T. M., Ramzy, K., & Abd El-
Salam, M. (2020). Energy recovery system in small 
reverse osmosis desalination plant: Experimental 
and theoretical investigations. Alexandria Engineering 
Journal, 59, 3741-3753.

Mendoza-Zapata, L., Maturana-Córdoba, A., Mejía-
Marchena, R., Cala, A., Soto-Verjel, J., & Villamizar, 
S. (2023). Unlocking synergies between seawater 
desalination and saline gradient energy: Assessing the 
environmental and economic benefits for dual water 



Pa
ge

 
12

2

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 111-122, 2025

and energy production. Applied Energy, 351, 121876.
Mogashane, T. M., Maree, J. P., Mujuru, M., & Mphahlele-

Makgwane, M. M. (2020). Technologies that can be 
Used for the Treatment of  Wastewater and Brine 
for the Recovery of  Drinking Water and Saleable 
Products. Recovery of  byproducts from acid mine drainage 
treatment, 97-156.

Najid, N., Fellaou, S., Kouzbour, S., Gourich, B., & Ruiz-
García, A. (2021). Energy and environmental issues 
of  seawater reverse osmosis desalination considering 
boron rejection: A comprehensive review and a case 
study of  exergy analysis. Process Safety and Environmental 
Protection, 156, 373-390.

Panagopoulos, A., & Haralambous, K. J. (2020). 
Environmental impacts of  desalination and brine 
treatment-Challenges and mitigation measures. Marine 
Pollution Bulletin, 161, 111773.

Peng, W., Maleki, A., Rosen, M. A., & Azarikhah, P. 
(2018). Optimization of  a hybrid system for solar-
wind-based water desalination by reverse osmosis: 
Comparison of  approaches. Desalination, 442, 16-31.

Saboori, H., & Mehrjerdi, H., 2022. Tri-objective 
optimization of  a synergistic wind-photovoltaic 
plant for water desalination addressing sustainable 
development goals. Sustainable Development, 30, 1811-
1822.

Saleh, L., & Mezher, T., 2021. Techno-economic analysis 
of  sustainability and externality costs of  water 
desalination production. Renewable and Sustainable 
Energy Reviews, 150, 111465.

Sawle, Y., Gupta, S., & Bohre, A.K., 2018. Review of  
hybrid renewable energy systems with comparative 
analysis of  off-grid hybrid system. Renewable and 
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 2217-2235.

Schär, S., Bischi, A., Baccioli, A., Desideri, U., & 
Geldermann, J. (2023). Optimization of  sustainable 
seawater desalination: Modeling renewable energy 
integration and energy storage concepts. Energy 
Conversion and Management, 293, 117447.

Shokri, A., & Fard, M. S. (2023). Techno-economic 
assessment of  water desalination: Future outlooks and 
challenges. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 
169, 564-578.

Soliman, M. N., Guen, F. Z., Ahmed, S. A., Saleem, H., 
Khalil, M. J., & Zaidi, S. J. (2021). Energy consumption 
and environmental impact assessment of  desalination 
plants and brine disposal strategies. Process Safety and 
Environmental Protection, 147, 589-608.

Wang, Z., Horseman, T., Straub, A.P., Yip, N.Y., Li, 
D., Elimelech, M., & Lin, S., 2019. Pathways and 
challenges for efficient solar-thermal desalination. 
Science advances, 5, eaax0763.


